Comments on buzoncrime: Random, alternative, Iconoclastic thoughts on the ...

I tend to agree with Helix more---about the clowns...

2008-06-20T17:09:00.000-04:00

I tend to agree with Helix more---about the clowns gaming the system. I ran into a person last night who wanted me to "give him a list of jobs". Huh?

After questioning, what I found out was: Child Support Enfocement will suspend his driver's license unless he filled in blanks on a form to "prove" that he was looking for a job in order to pay child support. So all he needed was the name, address, and phone number of 15 "employers" that he had "contacted"--and then the would not suspend his license. He told me that he would like to find a janitorial job part-time. He has a full time "under the table" job drug-selling, er, whoops, barbering. But CSE won't accept money from him; he must have a job where they take taxes, and child support and such.

When I suggested he get a legitimate full=time job, he said his was not breaking any laws. I pointed out to him that he was not paying taxes (or child-support at this time), so it really wasn't legitimate.

I ran his name, and guess: He has convictions for murder, 1st degree assault, and now is on probation for 2nd degree assault. He has in the past sued wardens at the City Jail and Eastern Correctional Institution.
But we trust him to present "proof" of his job search. Wonder if anybody checks? And how would they really check, anyway?

BTW, has anyone ever heard Pat Jessamy speak? She ...

2008-06-20T12:56:00.000-04:00

BTW, has anyone ever heard Pat Jessamy speak? She always goes on and on about some bullshit "three-pronged" approach and how her office provides "services" to victims and offenders.

Screw that. The SA should do only ONE thing: Prosecute. The "three prongs" are: PROSECUTE, PROSECUTE, PROSECUTE.

Other organizations can handle the rest and do a better job.

anonymous, The whole system is dysfunctional. We c...

2008-06-20T12:51:00.000-04:00

anonymous,

The whole system is dysfunctional. We can go around and try to focus blame on one part or another, but every component seems to be utterly broken. IMHO, too much attention is put on the police and NOT ENOUGH on the SA, the courts, and corrections.

More importantly, I think that if we actually carried out appropriate sentencing, it would end up being better for everyone involved, including offenders.

When somebody violates probation, that's like breaking "the deal". They originally got probation to avoid jail time in exchange for "being good". So, what point is probation if it is not taken seriously?

"Get a new parole commission and build new prisons...

2008-06-20T08:29:00.000-04:00

"Get a new parole commission and build new prisons."

And elect a new legislature that'll toughen sentencing laws. We should do what the Feds did and abolish parole.

None of which have anything to do with the State's...

2008-06-20T02:53:00.000-04:00

None of which have anything to do with the State's Attorney. All the SA can do is prosecute or not prosecute the case, and if the defendant is found guilty, recommend a sentence. The SA has no control over diminution credits, parole or the level of detention (home detention, work release, etc.). All the SA can do is request/recommend that a defendant not be paroled or granted work release, but ultimately it is up to the Judge or the parole board, neither of which the SA controls. So if Ramos gets out after 1 year or 10, it's beyond the SA's control. Get a new parole commission and build new prisons.

anonymous, 40 years is a long time. But how do we ...

2008-06-19T08:17:00.000-04:00

anonymous,

40 years is a long time. But how do we know it _really_ is 40 years? Time after time, people get out before finishing their sentences. The other people got 8 years. How long is that, really? 6? 4? less?

Even worse than that, probation appears to be routinely subverted. Every time I read about a horrific crime, the prep is typically a repeat offender UNDER PROBATION yet somehow FREE TO ROAM. I had always thought that if you violate probation, you go to jail to serve the original sentence. Isn't that the deal? Isn't that fair enough?

What sparked the current outrage, of course, were ...

2008-06-17T16:45:00.000-04:00

What sparked the current outrage, of course, were Ms. Burns' totally unnecessary comments.

A lot of people are upset with the idea of plea bargaining. I can understand that, but if we didn't have plea bargaining, no felon would get to trial within reqired limits and they'd go free. Also, it gets the victims and the state an assured guilty finding for something; usually at least a modest sentence.

I guess in an ideal world, it would be nice to have the accused sit there and squirm and face all the evidence against him/her. But the truth is they don't have much to lose anyway, and usually don't squirm anyhow. In an even better world, the crime wouldn't have been committed in the first place.

Most of those who would throw stones, particularly...

2008-06-17T16:33:00.000-04:00

Most of those who would throw stones, particularly Baltimore Crime readers, have very limited, if any, courtroom experience of legal training. Concepts such as chain of custody, hearsay and reasonable doubt things that they see on Law & Order, not in real life.

Finally, they need to answer the question, what did they want to happen, what did they expect to happen, and what actually happened?
They wanted Mr. Ramos to be executed (an impossibility for the offense he was initially charged with). They expected the case to go to trial, him to be found guilty and receive a life sentence (a path fraught with peril and uncertainty. ). Instead he received a forty year sentence. FORTY years. That's a long time. Not as long as life, but as you mentioned, a less than pleasurable experience to say the least.

Thanks, Anonymous! I'm glad SOMEONE agrees with po...

2008-06-17T14:28:00.001-04:00

Thanks, Anonymous! I'm glad SOMEONE agrees with poor ole me.

Thanks, Anonymous! I'm glad SOMEONE agrees with po...

2008-06-17T14:28:00.000-04:00

Thanks, Anonymous! I'm glad SOMEONE agrees with poor ole me.

Buz, I agree with you 100% regarding the dangerous...

2008-06-17T12:20:00.000-04:00

Buz, I agree with you 100% regarding the dangerous of proceeding to trial, and the appropriateness of the punishments received by the defendants based on the situation faced by the SAO.

Every criminal defense lawyer is taught that when nothing is going in your client's favor, when in doubt, pray jury trial. At a jury trial, ANYTHING can happen. The ability to ask leading questions is an extreme advantage that the prosecution does not enjoy in its case-in-chief, but the defense will sit there and blow every crack wide open. The evidence was circumstantial and as you noted, there were no corroborating wittinesses other than co-conspirators. Every defense attorney in Baltimore would be relishing the opportunity to cross examine them impeach them, impeach them some more, and continue to impeach them. It would have been a circus. And as you mentioned, at the time of the sentencing, Zach was still alive, and Mr. Ramos got 40 years. That is a long time. Sure it's not life or the death penalty, but the critics wouldn't last 4 days in the D.O.C. let alone 40 years. And it is NOT the SA prerogative whether or not he gets paroled or released early for diminution credits. If Marylanders want that changed, petition your legislators, but be prepared for an unprecedented wave of prison violence and overcrowding.

If people really want to affect change in the SAO, support the strongest candidate who runs again Madame Jessamy. Contribute both your time and money to the campaign and go out and vote instead of griping on the sidelines.